Do Satisfied Customers Buy More?

Examining
Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context
K. Seiders

G.B. Voss

D. Grewal

A.L. Godfrey

Associate Professor of
Marketing
Carroll School of
Management
Boston College
seiders@bc.edu

Associate Professor of
Marketing
Department of Business
Management
North Carolina State
University
gvoss@ncsu.edu

Chair of e-Commerce and

Electronic Business &
Professor of Marketing
Babson College
dgrewal@babson.edu

Doctoral student
University of Texas
Andrea.godfrey@phd.
mccombs.utexas.edu

ABSTRACT

In this research, the authors propose that the relationship between satisfaction and repurchase
behavior is moderated by customer, relational, and marketplace characteristics. They further
hypothesize that the moderating effects emerge if repurchase is measured as objective behavior but
not if it is measured as repurchase intentions. To test for systematic differences in effects, the authors
estimate identical models using both longitudinal repurchase measures and survey measures as the
dependent variable. The results suggest that the relationship between customer satisfaction and
repurchase behavior is contingent on the moderating effects of convenience, competitive intensity,
customer involvement, and household income. As the authors predicted, the results are significantly
different for self-reported repurchase intentions and objective repurchase behavior. The conceptual
framework and empirical findings reinforce the importance of moderating influences and offer new
insights that enhance the understanding of what drives repurchase behavior.

Marketing literature consistently identifies

customer satisfaction as a key antecedent to
loyalty and repurchase, but current knowledge
fails to explain fully the prevalence of satisfied
customers who defect and dissatisfied
customers who do not (Bendapudi and Berry
1997; Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds 2000;
Jones and Sasser 1995; Keaveney 1995).
Although prior research points to several
variables that may moderate the satisfaction
repurchase relationship, empirical results are
equivocal and difficult to reconcile.
Many empirical studies examining direct and
moderated
satisfactionrepurchase
effects
measure repurchase intentions rather than
objective repurchase behavior. Studies can
produce erroneous inferences if there are
significant differences between intentions and
subsequent behavior (Bolton 1998; Kamakura
et al. 2002; Mittal and Kamakura 2001;
Morwitz, Steckel, and Gupta 1997) or if
common method variance inflates estimates of
the
association
between
self-reported
satisfaction and intentions (Bolton 1998; Gruen,

Summers, and Acito 2000; Morwitz and

Schmittlein 1992). Satisfaction levels at which
customers report a positive intent can differ
considerably from those at which customers
engage in the corresponding behavior (Mittal
and Kamakura 2001). Therefore, additional
research is necessary that explicitly examines
the extent to which results converge when using
repurchase
intentions
versus
objective
repurchase behavior as the dependent measure.
In response to calls for deeper insight into
factors that may moderate the satisfaction
repurchase relationship (e.g., Bolton, Lemon,
and Verhoef 2004), we propose a conceptual
framework that explains why two customers
with the same (different) levels of satisfaction
engage in different (the same) patterns of
repurchase behavior. We use consumer resource
allocation theory to support our prediction that,
after we control for main effects established in
prior research (Anderson and Sullivan 1993;
Bolton 1998; Boulding et al. 1993; Rust,
Zahorik, and Keiningham 1995), customer,
relational, and marketplace characteristics

International Retail and Marketing Review

moderate the relationship between satisfaction

and repurchase behavior but do not moderate
the relationship between satisfaction and
repurchase intentions. For example, convenience (a marketplace characteristic) conserves
customers time and effort and thereby
facilitates a satisfied customers ability to fulfill
his or her intent.
We test the conceptual framework in an
understudied retail context that is characterized
by low switching costs and comparison
shopping behavior. This context is noteworthy
because no known research has examined
differences in intentions and objective
repatronage behavior in a retail shopping
category marked by moderate repurchase
frequency. Research suggests that the predictive
validity of repurchase intentions varies widely
from frequently purchased convenience goods
to infrequently purchased durables (e.g.,
Chandon, Morwitz, and Reinartz 2005). In
addition,
the
satisfactionrepurchase
relationship can differ significantly between
contractual services and discrete, recurring
purchases (Lemon, White, and Winer 2002;
Reinartz and Kumar 2003), for which switching
costs are lower and customers typically are not

39

obligated to give all their business to any one

firm (e.g., Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004).
Thus, our research extends current knowledge
by capturing the complexity of the satisfaction
repurchase relationship in a context marked by
discrete recurring transactions.
CONCEPTUALIZING A MODERATED
SATISFACTION REPURCHASE
BEHAVIOUR RELATIONSHIP
In Figure 1, we present a conceptual framework
that proposes satisfaction and customer,
relational, and marketplace characteristics as
antecedents to repurchase intentions and
behavior.
We
conceptualize
customer
satisfaction as a cumulative, global evaluation
based on experience with a firm over time
(Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer 2005).
Repurchase
intentions
represent
the
customers self-reported likelihood of engaging
in future repurchase behavior, whereas
repurchase behavior is the objectively observed
level of repurchase activity. The default
expectation is that satisfaction positively
influences both repurchase intentions and
behavior, and we offer no formal hypothesis for
this well-established relationship.

Figure 1:
A framework of examining moderators of the relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase

40

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

The dotted lines in Figure 1 capture direct

relationships that have been previously
established in the literature (e.g., Beatty and
Smith 1987; Bolton, Kannan, and Bramlett,
2000; Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004;
Soberon-Ferrer and Dardis 1991). In the
sections that follow, we provide brief reviews of
the relevant literature for these direct effects,
but we do not offer formal hypotheses for them.
Instead, we focus on the moderating effects
depicted by the solid lines in Figure 1.
Specifically, we predict that customer,
relational, and marketplace characteristics
moderate the relationship between satisfaction
and objective repurchase behavior after we
explicitly control for their direct (i.e., main)
effects. Moreover, we believe that these
variables do not moderate the relationship
between satisfaction and repurchase intentions
after we control for direct effects.
For conceptual, methodological, and empirical
reasons, we believe that customer, relational,
and marketplace characteristics moderate the
effect of satisfaction on objective repurchase
behavior but not on repurchase intentions. First,
consumer resource allocation theory suggests
that repurchase behavior reflects intervening
contingencies that measures of repurchase
intentions do not. Consumers allocate a variety
of resources to purchase decisions (Batshell
1980; Roberts and Dant 1991; Zeithaml 1988),
including money (Marmorstein, Grewal, and
Fishe 1992), time and effort (Becker 1965;
Feldman and Hornik 1981; Jacoby, Szybillo,
and Berning 1976), motivation, opportunity,
and cognitive ability (e.g., MacInnis and
Jaworski 1989; MacInnis, Moorman, and
Jaworski 1991; Peracchio and Meyers-Levy
1997). One stream of research depicts
consumers as cognitive misers (e.g., Shugan
1980) who lack the motivation and cognitive
ability to incorporate intervening contingencies
into their predicted repurchase probabilities.
Because consumers are not motivated to
consider simple intervening characteristics
(e.g., how different levels of income might
facilitate or constrain future repurchase activity)
or capable of foreseeing complex intervening
factors (e.g., competitive interactions among
firms), they routinely provide inaccurate
predictions
of
their
future
behavior
(Kahneman and Snell 1992; Morwitz 1997;
Morwitz, Steckel, and Gupta 1997). Thus,
consumer resource allocation theory explains

why people fail to consider intervening

contingency effects in predicting their future
behavior and predicts subsequent differences in
their motivation and capability to engage in
repurchase behavior.
Second, from a methodological perspective, we
expect systematic differences in the
measurement
properties
of
repurchase
intentions and behavior. Because intentions
measures typically use five- or seven-point
scales, information lost as a result of range
restrictions and coarseness can attenuate
researchers ability to detect significant
interaction effects that truly exist in the
population (Russell and Bobko 1992). Range
restriction occurs when information is lost
because the highest or lowest point on the scale
does not accurately capture extreme variations
in the construct of interest. Similarly,
coarseness refers to information that is lost
when one-point scale variations do not
accurately capture within-range variation in the
construct of interest. Range-restricted and
coarse scales may capture direct linear
relationships with other constructs, especially if
the two measures share common method
variance and response bias (Bolton 1998;
Morwitz and Schmittlein 1992). Measurement
theory suggests that intentions measures do not
capture the nuanced, complex variations that
are provided by objective repurchase behavior
measures, even if respondents could make
accurate predictions.
Finally, prior empirical research demonstrates
that the conversion of intent into repurchase is
moderated by various factors, including the type
of product (Jamieson and Bass 1989; Kalwani
and Silk 1982; Young, DeSarbo, and Morwitz
1998), demographics (Morwitz and Schmittlein,
1992), experience (Bentler and Speckart 1979;
Morwitz and Schmittlein 1992), and time lapse
(Chandon, Morwitz, and Reinartz 2005; Mittal
and Kamakura 2001; Young, DeSarbo, and
Morwitz 1998). Studies that Chandon,
Morwitz, and Reinartz (2005) conducted
suggest that consumers provide relatively more
accurate predictions of frequent, routine
purchase decisions, such as those involving
grocery items, than of infrequent, complex
purchase decisions, such as those involving
computers or automobiles. We attribute this

International Retail and Marketing Review

41

Table 1
Moderators of the Association Between Satisfaction and Repurchase
Study

Dependent Variable(s) Context

and Design

Customer
Characteristics

Relational
Characteristics

Marketplace
Characteristics

Bolton (1998)

Relationship Duration (OM)

Telecommunications
Longitudinal
Contractual service

Bowman and
Narayandas
(2001)

Share of Category Requirements

(SR)
Consumer package goods
Cross-sectional
Noncontractual goods

Heavy user (+)

Loyalty (+)

Bowman and
Narayandas
(2004)

Share of Customer Wallet (SR)

Processed metal
Longitudinal
Noncontractual industrial goods

Size ()

Account
management tenure
(+)

Satisfaction with
competitor (+)

Burnham, Frels,
and Mahajan
(2003)

Intention to Stay with Provider

(SR)
Credit card and telephone
service
Cross-sectional
Contractual service

Relational switching
costs (n.s.)

Procedural
switching costs
(n.s.)
Financial switching
costs (n.s.)

Capraro,
Broniarczyk,
and Srivastava
(2003)

Defection/Repurchase (SR)
Health insurance
Longitudinal
Contractual service

Garbarino and
Johnson (1999)

Future Intentions (SR)

Professional theater
Cross-sectional
Contractual and noncontractual
service

Homburg and
Giering (2001)

a. Recommendation Intentions
(SR)
b. Brand Repurchase Intentions
(SR)
c. Dealer Repurchase Intentions
(SR)
Auto manufacturer/dealer
Cross-sectional
Contractual goods and
services

Jones,
Mothersbaugh,
and Beatty
(2000)

Repurchase Intentions (SR)

Banking and hair salon
Cross-sectional
Contractual and noncontractual
services

Length of
experience (+)

Objective
knowledge (n.s.)
Subjective
knowledge (n.s.)
Relational
orientation ()

Income
SP (: a, b,
c) SSP (+:
a, b)
Involveme
nt: SSP
(: b)
Gender:
SP (+m:
c) SSP
(+f: b)
Age
SP (+: a, b,
c) SSP (:
b)

Variety seeking
SP (: a, b, c)

Interpersonal
relationships ()

Switching costs ()
Attractiveness of
alternatives (+)

42

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

Table 1
Continued
Dependent Variable(s)
Context and Design

Customer
Characteristics

Magi (2003)

a. Share of Purchase (SR)

b. Share of Visits (SR)
Grocery stores
Longitudinal
Noncontractual consumption
goods

Economic
orientation
(: a; n.s.: b)
Personalizing
orientation (: a, b)
Apathetic shopping
orientation
(n.s.: a, b) Age
(n.s.: a, b)
Purchase volume
(+: a; n.s.: b)

Mittal and
Kamakura
(2001)

Repurchase Behavior (OM)

Automobile manufacturer
Longitudinal
Contractual durable goods

Sex (+) Education

(+) Marital status
(n.s.) Age (+)
Children (+)

Verhoef (2003)

a. Customer Retention (OM)

b. Customer Share Development
(OM) Insurance
Longitudinal
Contractual service

Relationship age
(+: a; n.s.: b.)

Verhoef, Franses,
and Hoekstra
(2002)

a. Customer Referrals (SR)

b. Number of Services Purchased
(OM)
Insurance
Cross-sectional and
longitudinal
Contractual service

Relationship age
(n.s.: a; +: b)

Current Study

Repurchase Intentions (SR),

Repurchase Visits (OM), and
Spending (OM)
Apparel and home furnishings
Cross-sectional and
longitudinal
Noncontractual fashion goods

Study

Involvement
Household income

Relational
Characteristics

Marketplace
Characteristics

Urban versus
suburban (n.s.)

Relationship age
Relationship
program
participation

Competitive
intensity
Convenience of
offering

International Retail and Marketing Review

lower accuracy in the prediction of infrequent,

complex purchase decisions to unforeseen
contingency effects that emerge between
intentions measurement and subsequent
repurchase (Kalwani and Silk 1982).
In the following section, we rely on this
conceptual, methodological, and empirical
evidence to develop specific hypotheses that
build on prior research that has examined
moderators of the satisfactionrepurchase
relationship. In Table 1, we summarize the
studies that support moderating effects of
various customer, relational, and marketplace
characteristics. We report the results only for
moderating effects; that is, we do not include
results for main effects. A review of Table 1
shows that our study makes unique
contributions by testing formerly unexamined
moderating variables; linking survey data to
self-reported
intentions
and
objective,
longitudinal
repurchase
behavior;
and
investigating a previously understudied context
marked by low exit barriers.
DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES
The conceptual framework we present in Figure
1 proposes three categories of moderators that
operate at different levels. Customer
characteristics explain variations in the
satisfactionrepurchase relationship due to
individual differences, relational characteristics capture customers investments in
building or formalizing relationships with a
specific firm, and marketplace characteristics
account for variations related to market-level
competition. For each category of moderator,
we propose and subsequently test two specific
moderating variables. In each case, we predict
an interaction effect after we control for main
effects.
Customer Characteristics

Customer characteristics explain variations in

peoples purchase levels for an entire purchase
category. We expect that customer-level
variables have a direct influence on repurchase
intentions and behavior and moderate the
relationship
between
satisfaction
and
repurchase behavior. We examine involvement,
a motivational resource, and household
income, a monetary resource. Because both

43

moderators are closely linked to key resources,

they are likely to be among the most significant
customer-level influences.
Involvement. Involvement is the importance of
the purchase category to the consumer and is
based on the consumers inherent needs, values,
and interests (Mittal 1995). From a resource
perspective, highly involved customers allocate
more time and effort to search (Beatty and
Smith, 1987; Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway
1986; Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy 1990) and
report higher levels of repatronage intentions
(Wakefield and Baker 1998), which suggests a
positive direct link between involvement and
repurchase intentions and behavior. We
acknowledge an alternative view that
involvement could negatively affect repurchase
intentions. More involved consumers may be
more likely to search and potentially identify
more preferred alternatives in the market,
regardless of their level of satisfaction.
We also expect that involvement enhances the
positive effect of satisfaction on actual
repurchase behavior but not on repurchase
intentions. Involved shoppers should allocate
more time, effort, and money to retailers that
provide exceptional satisfaction. They should
also be more discriminating among offerings
and more responsive and committed to superior
offerings (Beatty, Kahle, and Homer 1988).
This positive moderating effect would extend to
repurchase intentions if involved customers
accurately incorporated these complex effects
into their predictions, but because we do not
expect such incorporation to occur, we formally
hypothesize the following:
H1:

Involvement (a) moderates (enhances) the

positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and objective repurchase
behaviour but (b) does not moderate the
positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase intention.

Household income. Household income is

positively related to consumers routine
expenditures for multiple types of services
(Nichols and Fox 1983; Soberon-Ferrer and
Dardis 1991), loyalty among online shoppers
(Keaveney and Parthasarathy 2001), and
profitable lifetime customer duration (Reinartz
and Kumar 2000). On the basis of these

44

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

findings, we expect that household income has

a positive influence on repurchase intentions
and behavior.
Household income should also intensify the
relationship
between
satisfaction
and
repurchase behavior. The conversion of intent
into purchase varies across groups that differ in
their ability to fulfill that intent (Morwitz and
Schmittlein 1992), and lower-income customers
may be constrained in their purchases. Because
higher-income customers place a higher value
on time and are more discriminating in how
they allocate their time (Marmorstein,
Grewal, and Fishe 1992), they should visit and
spend less at retailers that offer low satisfaction
and more at retailers that offer high satisfaction.
This positive moderating effect would extend to
intentions only if higher- and lower-income
customers accurately incorporated the enabling
and constraining effect of income. Because we
do not expect such incorporation to occur, we
formally hypothesize the following:
H2:

Household income (a) moderates (enhances)

the positive relationship between customer
satisfaction
and objective repurchase
behavior but (b) does not moderate the
positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase intentions.

Relational Characteristics

Relational characteristics represent formal and

informal bonds between the firm and its
customers; relational bonds can create social
and financial switching barriers that provide
firms with an advantage insulated from
competitor actions. Although relational
moderators have been examined primarily in
the context of contractual services, relational
strategies designed to encourage discrete,
ongoing repurchase are widespread. Proposed
relational moderators include relationship age
with the focal firm and participation in the
firms relationship program.
Relationship age. Prior experience influences
intent, repurchase behavior (Anderson,
Fornell, and Lehmann 1994; Morwitz and
Schmittlein 1992), and loyalty (Ganesh, Arnold,
and Reynolds 2000). Relationship age is
positively related to customer profitability
(Reinartz and Kumar 2000, 2003), retention
(Bolton 1998), number of services purchased

(Verhoef, Franses, and Hoekstra 2002),

continued museum membership (Bhattacharya
1998; Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1995), and
(we expect) repurchase intentions and behavior.
Empirical results indicate that length of prior
experience enhances the positive association
between
satisfaction
and
subsequent
relationship duration (Bolton, 1998) and that
relationship age enhances the link between
satisfaction and retention and the number of
services purchased (Verhoef 2003; Verhoef,
Franses, and Hoekstra 2002). This effect would
extend to intentions only if relational
customers
accurately
incorporated
the
moderating effect of prior relational
investments, but because we do not expect such
incorporation to occur, we hypothesize the
following:
H3:

Relationship age (a) moderates (enhances)

the positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and objective repurchase behavior
but (b) does not moderate the positive
relationship between customer satisfaction
and repurchase intentions.

Relationship program participation. Relationship programs represent company initiatives

that target individual customers who agree to
exchanges that may be complementary or
ancillary to their purchase transactions. These
pro- grams promote retention by enhancing
customers perceptions of the relationship
investment and increasing their trust and
commitment (De Wulf, Odekerken-Schroder,
and Iacobucci 2001; Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml
2004). Participants may receive personalized
communications that keep them informed of
new offerings or preferential treatment and
rewards for past loyalty. Empirical findings
indicate that relationship program participation
has positive direct effects on intentions, usage
levels, retention, and customer share
development (Bolton, Kannan, and Bramlett
2000; Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Verhoef
2003).
We also expect that relationship program
participation enhances the positive effect of
satisfaction on repurchase behavior. Customers
enter relationships in part to reduce the time
and effort required for purchase decisions
(Bhattacharya and Bolton 2000; Sheth and
Parvatiyar 1995), which suggests that
relationship program participants should be

International Retail and Marketing Review

less inclined to shop around and more inclined

to allocate purchases to relational providers that
offer superior satisfaction. This positive
moderating effect would extend to intentions
only if customers accurately incorporated the
moderating effect of relational program
participation. Because we do not expect such
incorporation to occur, we hypothesize the
following:
H4:

Relationship program participation (a)

moderates
(enhances)
the
positive
relationship between customer satisfaction
and objective repurchase behavior but (b)
does not moderate the positive relationship
between
customer
satisfaction
and
repurchase intentions.

Marketplace Characteristics

Marketplace moderators feature interactions

among customers, the focal firm, and
competing firms. For example, intense
competition that spurs price promotions may
increase switching behavior and overall
purchase volume, or new firms entering the
marketplace may steal customers and market
share from entrenched competitors. We examine
the convenience of the focal firms offering and
its interaction with competitive intensity in the
marketplace.
Convenience. Overall convenience is a secondorder construct that consists of five types of
time and effort costs involved in service
experiences (Berry, Seiders, and Grewal 2002).
Empirical findings indicate that convenience is
significantly related to customer satisfaction
and behavioral intentions (Andaleeb and Basu
1994), consumer switching behavior (Keaveney
1995), and customer perceptions and retention
(Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004).
In addition to its direct effects, we propose that
convenience enhances the positive effect of
satisfaction on repurchase behavior but not on
intentions. From a resource allocation
perspective, a convenient offering conserves
customers time and effort and thereby
facilitates a satisfied customers ability to fulfill
his or her intent. In this capacity, convenience
functions less as an input to evaluation and
more as an ongoing barrier that encourages or
discourages repurchase behavior. This is likely
to be particularly relevant for repatronage
behavior, for which access to geo- graphically

45

based retailers or other service firms is a major

decision factor, and can produce both planned
and unplanned trade-offs between degree of
convenience and level of satisfaction. Thus:
H5:

Convenience (a) moderates (enhances) the

positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and objective repurchase
behavior but (b) does not moderate the
positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase intentions.

Competitive intensity. We define competitive

intensity as the level of direct competition that
the focal firm faces within its immediate
business domain. Competitive intensity can
attenuate competitive advantage and influence
repurchase behavior over time because
competition erodes customers perceptions of
differential advantage along unsustainable
dimensions.
For
example,
convenience
represents a characteristic that can be readily
replicated in many marketplaces; thus, the
relative advantage it offers when competition is
low is eroded as competition intensifies.
We illustrate the expected interaction using an
anecdote about gas station competition and
repurchase. A consumer routinely travels three
distinct routes along which he or she makes
repurchase decisions. On the first route, there is
only one gas station; the convenience of the
offering may be paramount, so the traveler
repurchases at this gas station, especially if he
or she is satisfied with the service station but,
when necessary, even if he or she is not. On the
second route, there are two gas stations on
opposite sides of the road, both of which are
open with no waiting line; convenience may
lead the traveler to repurchase at whichever
station is on the side of the road in the direction
he or she is traveling. Alternatively, one of the
competitors may deliver higher satisfaction on
another dimension, which would lead the
traveler to cross the road if necessary to
repurchase from the same gas station. On the
third route, there are four gas stations located
on the four corners of an intersection; each is
open without a waiting line. Convenience may
continue to play a key role (e.g., stop at the first
one on the same side of the road that does not
have a line), but an alternative decision rule
could lead to convenience becoming
irrelevant.

46

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

This anecdote suggests a three-way interaction

among
satisfaction,
convenience,
and
competitive intensity. When competitive
intensity is low, convenience prevents defection
and facilitates repurchase behavior, thus
exerting both a direct and a moderating
influence on repurchase. However, as
competitive intensity increases, convenience
plays a less important role in the repurchase
decision. It is not clear whether competitive
intensity will have a significant direct effect,
which would depend on whether customers
perceive shopping synergies associated with a
large number of competitors in a single
destination, such as at a regional shop- ping
mall. We do not expect that customers will
incorporate these complex interactions into
repurchase intentions, which suggests the
following hypothesis:
H6:

Competitive intensity (a) moderates the

relationships among customer satisfaction,
convenience, and repurchase behavior such
that convenience enhances the relationship
between satisfaction and repurchase behavior
when com- petitive intensity is low but not
when competitive intensity is high but (b)
does not moderate the relationship among
customer satisfaction, convenience, and
repurchase intentions.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND EMPIRICAL

RESULTS
To examine our hypotheses, we worked with a
national specialty retail chain that sells its own
brand of upscale womens apparel and home
furnishings in approximately 100 North
American locations. The company provided
contact information for 3117 customers and
offered a $20 coupon to customers who
responded to the four-page questionnaire. The
customer list included randomly selected
names of customers who had purchased
merchandise from any store during the 12
weeks before the generation of the list. Thus,
the sampling frame represents current
customers.
Contact information included names and
addresses for all 3117 customers and e-mail
addresses for 1150 customers who had joined
the relationship program, which featured
frequent e-mails announcing newly arrived
merchandise and promotions. We sent e-mail

messages to all 1150 e-mail addresses, inviting

potential respondents to click through to an
online survey. Of these 1150 addresses, 264 emails were returned as undeliverable, leaving an
effective sampling frame of 886. After two
weeks, we sent an additional e-mail to
nonrespondents, offering them another chance
to participate. We ultimately received 285
surveys, for an effective response rate of 32%.
We eliminated 12 respondents who provided
incomplete information from subsequent
analyses, leaving a total of 276 usable
responses.
We sent postal mail to the other 1967 names on
the customer list. Of these, 28 were returned as
undeliverable, leaving an effective sampling
frame of 1939. After four weeks, we sent a
follow-up letter and survey to the nonrespondents, offering them another chance to
participate. A total of 721 people responded, for
an effective response rate of 37%. Of these, 52
incomplete surveys were unusable, leaving a
total of 669 usable responses. The 945
respondents to both surveys were primarily
women (99%) between the ages of 35 and 54
years (66%) with at least some college
education (96%) and an average household
income exceeding $58,000.
Construct Measurement

We operationalized repurchase behavior using

two measures from the companys records: the
number of repurchase visits and the amount of
repurchase spending during the 52 weeks after
completion of the survey. The use of objective
repurchase data for the year following the
survey eliminates concerns of common method
variance, simultaneity, or endogeneity. We log
transformed the repurchase behavior measures
to improve distribution normality.
Several independent measures were objective
secondary data or single-item, self-reported
measures. We measured household income as
the median household income reported in the
2000 census for the respondents zip code.
Relationship age was a single-item measure
(i.e., How long have you been a
customer?).
Relationship
program
participation was a dichotomous variable
indicating whether the customer had opted in to
the
companys
e-mail
program.
To
operationalize competitive intensity, we used

International Retail and Marketing Review

Census Bureau Zip Code Business Patterns data

that report the number of establishments
competing in each North American Industry
Classification
System
(NAIC;
http://
censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml);
using the respondents zip code, we included
the total number of competitors in womens
clothing (NAIC code 448120) and other home
furnishings (NAIC code 442299).
We adapted multi-item scales to measure
repurchase intentions (Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
and Berry 1994), satisfaction (Voss,
Parasuraman, and Grewal 1998), and involvement (Beatty and Talpade 1994). Because no
comprehensive convenience scale existed, we
followed standard procedures to develop scale
items for each of the five convenience types
(Berry, Seiders, and Grewal 2002). The multigroup confirmatory factor analysis that we
report in the Appendix supports the reliability
and consistency of the scales (Voss and
Parasuraman 2003). We used mean scores for
the latent constructs in subsequent regression
analyses.
In Table 2, we present descriptive statistics and
construct correlations for the variables of
interest. Comparison of the means for the postal
mail and e-mail samples indicates that
relationship program participants are more
involved, have lower relationship ages, and
engage in more repurchase visits and spending.
These mean differences raise questions as to
whether there are differences in the structural
relationships of interest across the two samples.
We conducted an exploratory analysis to
address this. Of the 15 possible structural
differences across the three models (five for
each model: repurchase visits, spending, and
intentions), only one was significant at the p <
.05 level; moreover, there was no increase in the
adjusted R2 for any of the models. These results
reinforce the generalizability of the findings
across the two samples.
Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypotheses, we ran a series of

regression analyses to estimate identical models
for repurchase intentions, visits, and spending.
Preliminary analyses indicated that the
hypotheses were supported by 12 of the 18 tests
and that the interaction effects of relationship
age (H3) and relationship program participation

47

(H4) were not significant in any model. For

reasons of parsimony, we re-estimated the three
models without these variables. We present the
non-standardized coefficients and t-values for
the reduced models in Table 3, in which we
group the hypothesized interaction terms in the
lower half to facilitate inferences about
hypothesized effects. Each model is significant
(p < .01), but the explanatory power of the
model with repurchase intentions as the
dependent variable is much higher than those
with repurchase visits or spending as the
dependent variable. This finding suggests that
some of the explanatory power of the
repurchase intentions model is due to shared
method variance.
The relatively low explanatory power of the
equations with objective dependent measures
raises some concern about omitted variable
bias. To address this concern, we reran the
analyses and included lagged dependent
measures (i.e., purchase visits and spending for
the previous year), which capture unobserved,
systematic variation across respondents. This
lagged analysis produced no changes in the
results for customer or market characteristics
and a minor attenuation of the direct effects of
relational characteristics, thus indicating that
the lagged dependent variables partially
mediate the effects of relationship age and
relationship program participation. These
results suggest that omitted variable bias is not
a significant concern.
Repurchase behavior. In the repurchase visits
model, three of the four hypothesized
interactions (income satisfaction, convenience
satisfaction, and convenience com- petition
satisfaction) are significant and in the
expected direction. These three results are
replicated in the repurchase spending model, in
which the fourth interaction term (involvement
satisfaction) is also significant and in the
expected direction. Thus, H1a receives partial
support, and H2a, H5a, and H6a are fully
supported in both analyses. The graphs in
Figure 2 facilitate interpretations of these
results.
With regard to H1a, involvement moderates the
satisfactionrepurchase spending link (t = 2.22,
p < .05, effect size [ES] = .07) but not the
satisfactionrepurchase visits link (Cohen

48

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix for the Constructs of Interest

1. Satisfaction
2. Involvement
3. Household income
4. Relationship age
5. Relationship program
participation
6. Convenience
7. Competitive intensity
8. Repurchase intentions
9. Repurchase visits
10. Repurchase spending

Overall
Mean
(Standard
Deviation):
N = 945

Postal Mail
Mean
(Standard
Deviation):
N = 669

E-Mail Mean
(Standard
Deviation):
N = 276

4.34
(.72)
4.03
(.73)
58,776
(20,254)
3.13
(2.44)
.29
(.45)
3.89
(.54)
7.45
(10.39)
4.31
(.70)
4.13
(9.62)
326.68
(1083.00)

4.36
(.71)
3.99*
(.74)
59,941*
(20,500)
3.39*
(2.68)
0
(0)
3.88
(.53)
7.59
(10.55)
4.29
(.71)
3.27*
(9.03)
237.97*
(644.33)

4.29
(.74)
4.14*
(.70)
55,952*
(19,394)
2.50*
(1.56)
1
(0)
3.92
(.55)
7.12
(10.03)
4.36
(.68)
6.22*
(10.65)
541.72*
(1718.80)

1.0
.27

1.0

.06

.05

.01

.10

.06

1.0

.04

.10

.09

.17

.66

.28

.02

.09

.03

.01

.03

.03

.01

.02

.00

.53

.48

.06

.03

.04

.47

.00

.07

.10

.01

.03

.14

.11

.01

.11

.07

.11

.00

.00

.13

.10

.03

.10

*Means are significantly different across groups (p < .01); correlations |.07| are significant at p < .05 (two-tailed test).

1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.74

International Retail and Marketing Review

1988). As we show in Figure 2, Panel A, the

relationship
between
satisfaction
and
repurchase spending is positive only when
involvement is high; it is flat when involvement
is low. For H2a, household income moderates
the link between satisfaction and repurchase
visits (t = 3.12, p < .01, ES = .10) and between
satisfaction and repurchase spending (t = 2.53, p
< .01, ES = .08). As we show in Figure 2, Panel
B, the relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase spending is not
significant when household income is low, but it
is significantly positive when house- hold
income is high. Consistent with resource
allocation theory, this result shows that highly
satisfied,
lower-income
customers
are
constrained in their repurchase spending.
Insert table here (Table 2, pg.33)

In support of H5a, the convenience

satisfaction term is significantly positive in both
the repurchase visits (t = 1.85, p < .05, ES =
.06) and the repurchase spending (t = 1.73, p
< .05, ES = .06) models. In support of H6a, the
three-way convenience competition
satisfaction term is significantly negative in the
two objective repurchase behavior analyses
(repurchase visits: t = 2.17, p < .05, ES = .07;
repurchase spending: t = 2.44, p < .05, ES
= .08). To examine the nature of the interaction
effect, we divided the overall sample into three
(low, medium, and high) sub- groups based on
competitive intensity and reran the analysis.
The results indicate that the convenience
satisfaction term is significant only in the lowcompetition subgroup. As we show in Figure 2,
Panel C, the relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase spending is not
significant when convenience is low, but it is
significantly positive when convenience is high.
Repurchase intentions. The significant, negative
coefficient for the involvement satisfaction
interaction term is the only unexpected result
for the repurchase intentions model. As we
show in Figure 2, Panel D, the relationship
between satisfaction and repurchase intentions
is more positive when involvement is low than
when involvement is high, and repurchase
intentions are nearly as strong for highly
satisfied, low-involvement customers as for
highly satisfied, high-involvement customers.
Combining the results from Figure 2, Panels A

49

and D, offers additional insight: Lowinvolvement customers overestimate the

impact of increasing satisfaction on their
subsequent repurchase behavior.
Examining the Baseline Direct Effect

Although we did not hypothesize the baseline

direct effects captured by the dotted lines in
Figure 1, the results offer some inferences
worth noting. For the repurchase visits model,
five of the six antecedentsinvolvement,
relationship
age,
relationship
program
participation, convenience, and competition
have significant main effects. Although the
main effects of satisfaction and income are not
significant, significant higher-order terms
indicate that the direct effects are contingent.
The results for the repurchase spending model
are largely similar to the repurchase visits
model; although the main effects of
convenience and competition are not
significant, significant higher-order terms
indicate that the direct effects are contingent.
These results offer general support for the
baseline model depicted in Figure 1, in that all
antecedents have a significant effect on
repurchase visits and spending. All main effect
sizes are small (ES .11), with the exception of
relationship program participation, which has
the strongest effect size (ES = .29) with
repurchase visits as the dependent variable.
Only three antecedents have significant effects
on repurchase intentions. The main effect sizes
are moderately large for involvement (ES = .40)
and satisfaction (ES = .26) and are smaller for
convenience (ES = .14). Household income,
relationship
age,
relationship
program
participation, and competitive intensity have no
significant effects. Common method variance
offers a plausible explanation for this pat- tern
of results; all the independent variables that are
self- reported measures using Likert scales are
positively related to repurchase intentions, but
the other measures are not. In general, our
findings, with some interesting exceptions,
confirm the results of prior studies that report
significant direct effects of the models
antecedents on both repurchase intentions and
behavior.

50

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

Table 3
Regression Analysis Results

International Retail and Marketing Review

51

Figure 2
Significant Interaction Plots

DISCUSSION
The marketing concept, which proposes that
customer satisfaction should be the focal point
of business activities, is based on the explicit
assumption that satisfied customers repurchase
more and therefore are more profitable. In
questioning this fundamental assumption, we
predicted that customer, relational, and
marketplace characteristics would moderate the
relationship
between
satisfaction
and
repurchase behavior but not repurchase
intentions. In a specialty retailing context, we
find that satisfaction has a strong positive effect

on repurchase intentions but no direct effect

on repurchase behavior; customer and
marketplace characteristics play significant
moderating roles; and relational factors have a
positive direct influence on repurchase behavior
but not intentions.
Consistent with our prediction, we find that
inferences related to moderating effects vary
dramatically across self- reported repurchase
intentions and objective measures of repurchase
behavior. Our results show the absence of
significant moderating effects on the
satisfactionrepurchase intentions relationship

52

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

for five of the six interactions, but they show

the presence of significant moderating effects
on the satisfactionrepurchase behavior (visits
and spending) relationship for 7 of the 12
interactions. This pattern of results supports
our argumentdrawn from consumer
resource allocation theorythat customers
often fail to consider intervening contingency
effects when they predict their own future
behavior.
These divergent findings, consistent with the
modest correlations between intentions and
objective visits and spending (see Table 2),
again raise questions about the reliability of
customers self-reported repurchase intentions
for testing conceptual models of repurchase
behavior, including those that examine the role
of moderating variables. We summarize the
hypotheses test results in Table 4.
Moderating Effects on Repurchase
Behaviour and Intentions

Customer characteristics. Our results add to a

growing body of research that offers strong
support for the moderating role of customer
characteristics on repurchase behavior across a
variety of contexts (see Table 1). As we
expected, involved customers shop and spend
more than do less involved customers. The
significant moderating effect on repurchase
spending indicates that involved customers
spend even more when their satisfaction is high
(Figure 2, Panel A). The interaction effect is
not significant for repurchase visits, which
suggests that satisfaction has no linear effect on
involved customers repurchase frequency.
These active shoppers likely patronize a variety
of competing stores within their evoked set, and
delivering satisfaction to this customer group
simply establishes a presence in that set.
Delivering superior satisfaction does not lead
to increased repurchase frequency (i.e.,
customers continue to shop around), but it does
lead to significantly higher spending.
Unexpectedly, involvement has a negative
moderating effect on repurchase intentions.
Figure 2, Panel D, suggests that when lowinvolvement customers perceive superior
satisfaction, they register significantly higher
repurchase intentions; however, Panel A
indicates that low-involvement customers fail to
follow through on those intentions.

Consistent with Beckers (1965) theory of time

allocation, household income enhances the
effect of satisfaction on repurchase visits and
spending (Figure 2, Panel B). This result
confirms the role of household income as a
constraint that attenuates the influence of
satisfaction on repurchase behavior for lowerincome customers. As we expected, household
income does not moderate the link between
satisfaction and repurchase intentions. In
contrast, household income has no significant
direct effects, a finding we did not anticipate.
This result may reflect the highly focused
merchandising strategy and lifestyle orientation
of the specialty retailer we studied.
Relational characteristics. Our results add to
equivocal findings with respect to relational
characteristics, which seem to play a
moderating role in contractual or industrial
purchase contexts or when specific types of
repurchase behavior are examined (see Table
1). Relational variables may have weaker
moderating effects in contexts marked by
discrete purchase events and low exit barriers
than in contractual relationships (e.g., Bolton
1998; Reinartz and Kumar 2000; Verhoef
2003).
The
predicted
non-significant
moderating effects of relationship age and
relationship pro- gram participation on
repurchase intentions and the positive direct
effects on repurchase visits and spending but
not on intentions are consistent with our belief
that it is difficult for customers to incorporate
background factors such as relationship age and
program participation into future purchase
predictions.
The results indicate that habit plays a major role
in determining behavior in this context, and we
speculate that relationship programs that feature
direct communications may act as a personal
shopper by providing updates on merchandise,
sales, and promotions that simplify the
shopping process. These programs conserve
participants resources and provide them with
more frequent incentives to visit the retailers
stores. Participants may also perceive a greater
relationship investment by the retailer and
respond with higher behavioral commitment,
even if their intentions are unaffected.
Marketplace characteristics. Our results add
to the small number of studies that have
demonstrated moderating effects of marketplace

International Retail and Marketing Review

characteristics, and the results high- light the

importance of considering firm competitor
inter- actions that distinguish retail competition
across geographic marketplaces. The significant
results for convenience as a positive moderator
of satisfactions effects on repurchase visits and
spending highlight the importance of this
relatively unexamined construct. Collectively,
the findings suggest that convenience directly
encourages repurchase visits but that repurchase
spending occurs only if satisfaction also is high.
Convenience has been conceptualized as a
multidimensional construct that has particular
importance for retail patronage behavior
(Seiders, Berry, and Gresham 2000). We
contribute to the emerging literature in this area
by developing and testing a scale that captures
the multiple dimensions of shopping
convenience. As a threshold variable,
convenience assumes a different role from
switching costs, which have been examined in
other studies (e.g., Burnham, Frels, and
Mahajan 2003; Jones, Mothersbaugh, and
Beatty 2000). Whereas switching costs
represent a one-time penalty for customers that
is directly associated with moving from one
firm to another, convenience is a strategically
used marketing variable and a relatively stable
attribute of the offering. The lack of
convenience can be a motive to defect, whereas
the presence of convenience can motivate trial
or discourage defection.
Our study is one of the first to examine the
moderating effect of competitive intensity on
the satisfaction repurchase relationship
directly. The results support our expectation
that increasing competition attenuates the
positive effect of convenience, which is a
relatively easy-to- copy source of advantage. It
would also be instructive to explore the extent
to which competitive intensity erodes other
sources of competitive advantage. Furthermore,
com- petition exerts a positive main effect on
repurchase visits, which suggests that
competitors in this category benefit from
locating next to one another to create a
shopping destination.
Implications for Managers

Satisfaction scores by themselves may not

predict repurchase behavior accurately and may
create false security if managers assume that

53

higher satisfaction scores necessarily lead to

stronger repurchase behavior. That someone is
an ongoing customer suggests that he or she is
at least some- what or very satisfied (if not
delighted). However, greater value may be
gleaned by tracking defecting customers to
determine the cause of their defection or by
developing customer relationship management
systems that track actual repurchase decisions.
Such behavioral data are more accurate in
evaluating the effectiveness of firms
marketing strategies and therefore represent an
important complement to customer selfreported data.
Managers also would benefit from a better
understanding of moderating variables, such as
involvement and household income that can be
used to segment customers into lower or higher
repurchase groups. Firms can identify
customers with higher levels of involvement
and then attempt to foster long-term
relationships with members of that group.
Managers can invest resources in offering programs (e.g., by using initiatives such as in-store
events, experiential classes, and charitable
campaigns) to increase customer involvement.
For example, Whole Foods Market regularly
promotes a program in which it matches
customers contributions to featured national
environmental organizations through the highly
visible sale of coupons offered for purchase at
the stores checkout terminals. Our results
support the assumption that these carefully
focused initiatives can lead to more repurchase
visits and spending by increasing involvement
among customers.
Our results also suggest that managers should
encourage repurchase behavior through
deliberately multifaceted strategies that
conserve customers time and effort. For
example, innovative and comprehensive
approaches to site location analysis should be a
priority for retailers. Retail firms can develop
strategies that promote convenience and reduce
uncertainty by communicating specific and
detailed information about merchandise online
and by focusing on coordination to ensure
consistency across channels. Related to this is
the importance of encouraging customers to opt
in to permission-based communications and
then delivering tangible value to those who

54

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

Figure 4
Summary of Hypothesized Results

International Retail and Marketing Review

participate in relationship pro- grams. In our

study, respondents from the e-mail sample
visited and spent approximately twice as much
in the store as did the postal mail respondents
(see Table 2). Managers should consider
offering incentives to motivate customers to join
these programs. Moreover, firms should not
only allocate resources to attract and retain
customers who elect to join permission-based
communications programs but also use this
channel as a means for creative differentiation.
These types of initiatives construct effective
exit barriers and contribute to competitive
strength and viability.
Limitations and Further Research

As with all research, our study is constrained by

limitations that suggest areas for further
research. Although prior research suggests
that satisfaction is a partial mediator of the
effect of convenience on repurchase, we do not
explicitly examine the direct effect of
convenience on satisfaction. In terms of our
sample, 99% was female; because prior
research has demonstrated shopping differences
between men and women, caution should be
exercised when extending our findings to a
general population. The sample also included
only current customers; thus, our findings may
not extend to noncustomers who have no
experience with the firm or to customers who
have defected. We encourage additional
research
that
examines
defection
to
illuminate the differences between customers
who defect and those who do not.
We especially encourage additional studies that
investigate direct and moderating effects of
relational
characteristics.
We
collected
objective repurchase measures one year after
we measured the relationship program
participation, but endogeneity cannot be
completely ruled out as an alter- native
explanation for the robust direct effects,
because customers who elect to participate in
relationship programs may be particularly
enthusiastic or loyal. If this is true, the causal
ordering between relationship program
participation and repurchase behavior is
ambiguous. We believe that the involvement
construct included as an independent measure
effectively controls for purchase category
enthusiasm, but we did not control for store
loyalty. Further research could attempt to

55

disentangle relationship program participation

effects from the effects of other, related
constructs.
The dynamism of fashion, which encourages
variety- seeking shopping behavior, might
explain the lack of significant moderating
effects of relational characteristics in the current
study. Significant moderating effects of
relational characteristics might be found in
discrete repurchase con- texts that are less
dynamic and less hedonic. The type of
relationship program that the retailer
implements might also affect whether
moderating effects manifest. For example,
relationship programs that are multilevel (e.g.,
with different levels of benefits) rather than
dichotomous (as was the case with the retailer
in our study) might elicit significant moderating
effects.
Our results indicate key moderating roles of
customer characteristics, such as involvement
and income, and marketplace characteristics,
such as perceived convenience and competitive
intensity. Further research could provide a
deeper understanding of how these variables
and
relational
characteristics
influence
repurchase behavior across a variety of
conditions. We suspect that convenience is
important in explaining behavior for discrete,
recurring purchase decisions and likely
becomes even more important as the frequency
of repurchase increases (e.g., supermarket shopping). The multidimensional convenience
scale that we present in the Appendix may be
useful in exploring the role of convenience in
other purchase contexts.
The study of additional customer and
marketplace characteristics that may moderate
the satisfactionrepurchase relationship is an
important next step. Customer characteristics
that warrant examination for moderating effects
(see Table 1) include the propensity to engage
in relationships and variety seeking. Additional
marketplace characteristics, such as switching
barriers and the attractiveness of alternatives for
customers, should also be investigated further
(Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty 2000). For
example, if attractive alternatives exist, lesssatisfied customers would be more likely to
register regret (in passing up the alternative);
thus, they should be less likely to repurchase
from the focal retailer (Inman, Dyer, and Jia

56

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

1997; Inman and Zeelenberg 2002; Lemon,

White, and Winer 2002). This suggests that the
link between satisfaction and repurchase would
be more positive when attractive alternatives
exist.
We examine the impact of customer, relational,
and marketplace factors in a specialty retailing
context in which repurchase behavior equals
repatronage. We propose that these three
categories of moderators likely generalize
across repurchase situations; thus, the
conceptual framework in Figure 1 can be
applied, for example, to brand repurchase and
to retail repatronage behavior. More
specifically, we expect that the categories of
moderators are generalizable and that the
specific variables in each category that are
salient may vary across purchase situations.
Therefore, the conceptual framework should be
tested in additional repurchase contexts to
confirm that it can generalize across products
and services.
Finally, to our knowledge, no research has
examined the role of situational factors in
moderating the satisfaction repurchase
association. Decisions influenced by transitory

needs, such as those driven by emergency,

point-of- purchase, or time pressure factors,
often lead customers to engage in isolated
unsought, impulse, or suboptimal purchase
behavior.
Such
situational
moderating
influences war- rant better understanding in
terms of how they affect specific, stand-alone
transactions and ongoing customerfirm
relationships.
Despite these limitations and opportunities for
additional research, the current study introduces
new insights into the moderated relationship
between satisfaction and repurchase behavior in
a context marked by discrete, recur- ring
purchases. The conceptual framework and
empirical results improve the understanding of
the complex and contingent relationship
between customer satisfaction and repurchase
behavior and suggest that habit, convenience,
task simplification, and individual differences in
involvement and household income play
important roles. The findings also serve to
identify new directions for further research
that ultimately will enhance the understanding
of what drives repurchase behavior.

Lambda
Item Descriptions
Decision Convenience
I can easily determine prior to shopping whether SR will offer what I
Deciding to shop at SR is quick and easy.
I can quickly find information before I shop to decide if SR has what
Im looking for.
Access Convenience
I am able to get to SR quickly and easily.
SR offers convenient parking.
SR offers convenient locations.
SR offers convenient store hours.

Average
Variance
Extracted

.75

.52

.82

.54

.89

.73

.84

.57

.80

.61

.82
.50
.79
.79
.59
.87
.67

Transaction Convenience
I am able to complete my purchase quickly at SR.
SR makes it easy for me to conclude my transaction.
It takes little time to pay for my purchase at SR.

.84
.93
.78

Benefit Convenience
It is easy to find the products I am looking for at SR.
I can easily get product advice at SR.
The merchandise I want at SR can be located quickly.
It is easy to evaluate the merchandise at SR.

.80
.59
.85
.75

Postbenefit Convenience
SR takes care of product exchanges and returns promptly.
Any after-purchase problems I experience are quickly resolved at
SR.

Construct
Reliability

.74
.73

International Retail and Marketing Review

It is easy to take care of returns and exchanges at SR.

57

.76

Satisfaction
I am pleased with the overall service at SR.
Shopping at SR is a delightful experience.
I am completely satisfied with the SR shopping experience.

.82
.87
.88

Involvement
I have a strong personal interest in stores like SR.
Stores like SR are very important to me.
The kinds of products SR sells are important to me.

.81
.92
.84

Repurchase Intentions
How likely are you to shop more often at SR in the future?
How likely are you to continue shopping at SR?

.80
.84

Fit Statistics
Chi-square (degrees of freedom = 1363)
Nonnormed fit index
Comparative fit index

2351.60
.93
.94

.90

.74

.89

.73

.81

.68

Notes: SR = the specialty retailer brand name.

REFERENCES
Andaleeb, Syed Saad and Amiya K. Basu
(1994), Technical Complexity
and
Consumer Knowledge as Moderators of
Service Quality Evaluation in the
Automobile Service Industry, Journal of
Retailing, 70 (Winter), 36781.
Anderson, Eugene W., Claes Fornell, and
Donald R. Lehmann (1994), Customer
Satisfaction,
Market
Share,
and
Profitability, Journal of Marketing, 58
(July), 5366.
and Mary W. Sullivan (1993), The
Antecedents and Consequences of Customer
Satisfaction for Firms, Marketing Science,
12 (Spring), 12543.
Batshell, Richard R. (1980), Consumer
Resource Allocation Models at the
Individual Level, Journal of Consumer
Research, 7 (June), 7890.
Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle, and Pamela
M. Homer (1988), Alternative Hierarchies
of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: The
Impact of Brand Commitment and Habit,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16 (Summer), 110.
and Scott M. Smith (1987), External
Search Effort: An Investigation Across
Several Product Categories, Journal of
Consumer Research, 14 (June), 18395.
and Salil Talpade (1994), Adolescent
Influence in Family Decision Making: A
Replication with Extension, Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (September), 332
41.
Becker, Gary S. (1965), A Theory of the

Allocation of Time, The Economic Journal,

75 (September), 493517.
Bendapudi, Neeli and Leonard L. Berry
(1997), Customers Motivations for
Maintaining Relationships with Service
Providers, Journal of Retailing, 73
(Spring), 1523.
Bentler, Peter M. and George Speckart
(1979), Models of Attitude-Behavior
Relations, Psychological Review, 86 (5),
45264.
Berry, Leonard L., Kathleen Seiders, and Dhruv
Grewal (2002), Understanding Service
Convenience, Journal of Marketing, 66
(July), 117.
Bhattacharya, C.B. (1998), When Customers
Are Members: Customer Retention in Paid
Membership Contexts, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (1), 31
44.
and Ruth N. Bolton (2000),
Relationship Marketing in Mass Markets,
in Handbook of Relationship Marketing,
Jagdish N. Sheth and Atul Parvatiyar, eds.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
32754.
, Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann
Glynn (1995), Under- standing the Bond
of Identification: An Investigation of Its
Correlates among Art Museum Members,
Journal of Marketing, 59 (October), 4657.
Bloch, Peter H., Daniel L. Sherrell, and Nancy
M. Ridgway (1986), Consumer Search: An
Extended Framework, Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (June), 11926.
Bolton, Ruth N. (1998), A Dynamic Model of

58

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

the Customers Relationship with a

Continuous Service Provider: The Role of
Satisfaction, Marketing Science, 17 (1),
4565.
, P.K. Kannan, and Matthew D. Bramlett
(2000), Implications of Loyalty Program
Membership and Service Experiences for
Customer Retention and Value, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 28
(January), 95108.
, Katherine N. Lemon, and Peter C.
Verhoef
(2004),
The
Theoretical
Underpinnings
of
Customer
Asset
Management:
A
Framework
and
Propositions for Future Research, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32
(Summer), 27193.
Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard
Staelin, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1993), A
Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality:
From
Expectations
to
Behavioral
Intentions, Journal of Marketing Research,
30 (February), 727.
Bowman, Douglas and Das Narayandas
(2001), Managing Customer-Initiated
Contacts with Manufacturers: The Impact
on Share of Category Requirements and
Word-of-Mouth Behavior, Journal of
Marketing Research, 38 (August),281-97.
and (2004), Linking
Customer Management Effort to Customer
Profitability in Business Markets, Journal
of Marketing Research, 41 (November),
43347.
Burnham, Thomas A., Judy K. Frels, and Vijay
Mahajan (2003), Consumer Switching
Costs: A Typology, Antecedents, and
Consequences, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 31 (2), 109126.
Capraro, Anthony J., Susan Broniarczyk, and
Rajendra K. Srivastava (2003), Factors
Influencing the Likelihood of Customer
Defection: The Role of Consumer
Knowledge, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 31 (2), 16475.
Chandon, Pierre, Vicki G. Morwitz, and
Werner J. Reinartz (2005), Do Intentions
Really Predict Behavior? Self-Generated
Validity Effects in Survey Research,
Journal of Marketing, 69 (April), 114.
Cohen, Jacob (1988), Statistical Power
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2d
ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
De Wulf, Kristof, Gaby Odekerken-Schroder,

and Dawn Iacobucci (2001), Investments in

Consumer Relationships: A Cross- Country
and Cross-Industry Exploration, Journal
of Marketing, 65 (October), 3350.
Feldman, Laurence P. and Jacob Hornik (1981),
The Use of Time: An Integrated
Conceptual Model, Journal of Consumer
Research, 7 (March), 407419.
Ganesh, Jaishankar, Mark J. Arnold, and
Kristy
E.
Reynolds
(2000),
Understanding the Customer Base of
Service Providers: An Examination of the
Differences Between Switchers and
Stayers, Journal of Marketing, 64
(July),6587.
Garbarino, Ellen and Mark S. Johnson (1999),
The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust,
and
Commitment
in
Customer
Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 63
(April), 7087.
Gruen, Thomas W., John O. Summers, and
Frank
Acito
(2000),
Relationship
Marketing Activities, Commitment, and
Membership Behaviors in Professional
Associations, Journal of Marketing, 64
(July), 3449.
Homburg, Christian and Annette Giering
(2001), Personal Characteristics
as
Moderators of the Relationship between
Customer Satisfaction and LoyaltyAn
Empirical Analysis, Psychology and
Marketing, 18 (1), 4366.
, Nicole Koschate, and Wayne D. Hoyer
(2005), Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay
More? A Study of the Relationship Between
Customer Satisfaction and Willingness to
Pay, Journal of Marketing, 69 (April), 84
96.
Inman, J. Jeffrey, James S. Dyer, and Jianmin
Jia (1997), A Generalized Utility Model of
Disappointment and Regret Effects on
Choice Valuation, Marketing Science, 16
(2), 97111.
and Marcel Zeelenberg (2002),
Regret in Repeat Purchase Versus
Switching Decisions: The Attenuating
Role of Decision Justifiability, Journal of
Consumer Research, 29 (June), 11628.
Jacoby, Jacob, George J. Szybillo, and Carol
K. Berning (1976), Time and Consumer
Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Overview,
Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March),
320-39.
Jamieson, Linda F. and Frank M. Bass (1989),
Adjusting Stated Intention Measures to

International Retail and Marketing Review

Predict Trial Purchase of New Products: A

Comparison of Models and Methods,
Journal of Marketing Research, 26
(August), 33635.
Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh,
and Sharon E. Beatty (2000), Switching
Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services, Journal of Retailing, 76 (Summer),
25974.
Jones, Thomas O. and W. Earl Sasser Jr.
(1995), Why Satisfied Customers Defect,
Harvard Business Review, 73 (November
December), 8999.
Kahneman, Daniel and Jackie S. Snell (1992),
Predicting a Taste Change: Do People
Know What They Will Like? Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 5 (3), 187
200.
Kalwani, Manohar and Alvin J. Silk (1982),
On the Reliability and Predictive Validity
of Purchase Intention Measures, Marketing
Science, 1 (Summer), 24386.
Kamakura, Wagner A., Vikas Mittal, Fernando
de Rosa, and Jose Afonso Mazzon (2002),
Assessing the Service-Profit Chain,
Marketing Science, 21 (Summer), 294317.
Keaveney, Susan M. (1995), Customer
Switching Behavior in Service Industries:
An Exploratory Study, Journal of
Marketing, 59 (April), 7182.
and Madhavan Parthasarathy (2001),
Customer Switching Behavior in Online
Services: An Exploratory Study of the Role
of Selected Attitudinal, Behavioral, and
Demographic Factors, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 29
(October), 37490.
Lemon, Katherine N., Tiffany Barnett White,
and Russell S. Winer (2002), Dynamic
Customer
Relationship
Management:
Incorporating Future Considerations into
the Service Retention Decision, Journal of
Marketing, 66 (January), 114.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Bernard J. Jaworski
(1989), Information Processing from
Advertisements: Towards an Integrative
Framework, Journal of Marketing, 53
(October), 123.
, Christine Moorman, and Bernard J.
Jaworski (1991), Enhancing Consumers
Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to
Process Brand Information from Ads:
Conceptual Framework and Managerial
Implications, Journal of Marketing, 55
(October), 3253.

59

Magi, Anne W. (2003), Share of Wallet in

Retailing: The Effects of Customer
Satisfaction, Loyalty Cards and Shopper
Characteristics, Journal of Retailing, 79
(Summer), 97106.
Maheswaran, Durairaj and Joan Meyers-Levy
(1990), The Influence of Message Framing
and Issue Involvement, Journal of
Marketing Research, 27 (August), 36167.
Marmorstein, Howard, Dhruv Grewal, and
Raymond P.H. Fishe (1992), The Value of
Time Spent in Price-Comparison Shopping:
Survey and Experimental Evidence,
Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June),
5261.
Mittal, Banwari (1995), A Comparative
Analysis of Four Scales of Consumer
Involvement, Psychology and Marketing,
12 (NovemberDecember), 363380.
Mittal, Vikas and Wagner A. Kamakura
(2001), Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent,
and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the
Moderating
Effect
of
Customer
Characteristics, Journal of Marketing
Research, 38 (February), 13142.
Morwitz, Vicki (1997), Why Consumers
Dont Always Accurately Predict Their Own
Future Behavior, Marketing Letters, 8 (1),
5770.
and David Schmittlein (1992), Using
Segmentation to Improve Sales Forecasts
Based on Purchase Intent: Which
Intenders Actually Buy? Journal of
Marketing Research, 29 (November), 391
405.
, Joel H. Steckel, and Alok Gupta
(1997), When Do Purchase Intentions
Predict Sales? MSI Report No. 97-112.
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Institute.
Nichols, Sharon Y. and Karen D. Fox (1983),
Buying Time and Saving Time: Strategies
for Managing Household Production,
Journal of Consumer Research, 10
(September), 197208.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and
Leonard L. Berry (1994), Alternative
Scales for Measuring Service Quality,
Journal of Retailing, 70 (Fall), 20130.
Peracchio, Laura A. and Joan Meyers-Levy
(1997), Evaluating Persuasion-Enhancing
Techniques from a Resource-Matching
Perspective,
Journal
of
Consumer
Research, 24 (September), 178191.
Reinartz, Werner J. and V. Kumar (2000), On

60

Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context

the Profitability of Long-Life Customers in

a Noncontractual Setting: An Empirical
Investigation
and
Implications
for
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 67
(January), 7799.
and (2003), The Impact of
Customer Relationship Characteristics on
Profitable Lifetime Duration, Journal of
Marketing, 67 (January), 7799.
Roberts, Scott D. and Rajiv P. Dant (1991),
Rethinking Resource Allocation in Modern
Society: A Meanings-Based Approach,
Journal of Economic Psychology, 12
(September), 41130.
Russell, Craig J. and Philip Bobko (1992),
Moderated Regression Analysis and Likert
Scales: Too Coarse for Comfort, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77 (3), 33642.
Rust, Roland T., Katherine N. Lemon, and
Valarie A. Zeithaml (2004), Return on
Marketing: Using Customer Equity to
Focus Marketing Strategy, Journal of
Marketing, 68 (January), 109127.
, Anthony J. Zahorik, and Timothy L.
Keiningham (1995), Return on Quality
(ROQ):
Making
Service
Quality
Financially Accountable, Journal of
Marketing, 59 (April), 5870.
Seiders, Kathleen, Leonard L. Berry, and Larry
Gresham (2000), Attention Retailers: How
Convenient Is Your Convenience Strategy?
Sloan Management Review, 49 (3), 7990.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and Atul Parvatiyar (1995),
Relationship Marketing in Consumer
Markets, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 23 (4), 25571.
Shugan, Steven M. (1980), The Cost of
Thinking, Journal of Consumer Research,
7 (September), 99111.
Soberon-Ferrer, Horacio and Rachel Dardis
(1991), Determinants of Household
Expenditures for Services, Journal of
Consumer Research, 17 (March), 38597.

Verhoef, Peter C. (2003), Understanding the

Effect
of
Customer
Relationship
Management
Efforts
on
Customer
Retention
and
Customer
Share
Development, Journal of Marketing, 67
(October), 3045.
, Philip H. Franses, and Janny C.
Hoekstra (2002), The Effect of Relational
Constructs on Customer Referrals and
Number of Services Purchased From a
Multiservice Provider: Does Age of
Relationship Matter? Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 202
216.
Voss, Glenn B. and A. Parasuraman (2003),
Conducting Measurement Validation with
Experimental
Data:
Cautions
and
Recommendations, Marketing Letters, 14
(1), 5973.
, , and Dhruv Grewal (1998),
The Role of Price and Quality Perceptions
in Prepurchase and Postpurchase Evaluation
of Services, Journal of Marketing, 62
(October),46-61.
Wakefield, Kirk L. and Julie Baker (1998),
Excitement at the Mall: Determinants and
Effects on Shopping Response, Journal of
Retailing, 74 (Fall), 51539.
Young, Martin R., Wayne S. DeSarbo, and
Vicki G. Morwitz (1998), The Stochastic
Modeling of Purchase Intentions and
Behavior, Marketing Science, 44 (2), 188
202.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), Consumer
Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A
MeansEnd Model and Synthesis of
Evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 2
22.
Acknowledgement: Reprinted with permission
from the Journal of Marketing, published by
the American Marketing Association, 2005
69(4): 26 43.